Girling v Parole Board & Anor

Girling v Parole Board & Anor

The Parole Board did not err in its approach to medical evidence or in linking risk with the absence of a release plan in this case. The Home Secretary's directions under s 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 do not apply to the Board's judicial functions, but this error did not affect the outcome. The statutory scheme for referral to the Parole Board is compatible with Article 5.4 ECHR, and the Board retains sufficient independence.

Parties
Claimant: Norman Girling; First Defendant: Parole Board; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for declaration as to construction of s 32(6) Criminal Justice Act 1991
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Parole Board Independence, Article 5.4 ECHR, Life Sentences, Directions by Executive, Separation of Powers
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Judicial Review Parole Board Independence Article 5.4 ECHR Life Sentences Directions by Executive +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Girling

Claimant

Parole Board

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board failed to take proper account of the claimant's medical condition as it impacts on risk to the public.
  2. 2 Whether the Parole Board unlawfully linked risk with the lack of a release plan.
  3. 3 Whether the directions given by the Home Secretary to the Parole Board and the statutory scheme for referral are incompatible with Article 5.4 ECHR due to lack of independence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Parole Board did not err in its approach to medical evidence or in linking risk with the absence of a release plan in this case. The Home Secretary's directions under s 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 do not apply to the Board's judicial functions, but this error did not affect the outcome. The statutory scheme for referral to the Parole Board is compatible with Article 5.4 ECHR, and the Board retains sufficient independence.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for declaration as to construction of s 32(6) Criminal Justice Act 1991

Orders

  • Declaration that section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 should be construed so as not to apply to the judicial functions of the Parole Board.
  • Claim for judicial review otherwise dismissed.